ADDED: "DV" means "diavlog" — that is, a video'd conversation between 2 persons. BHTV supposedly pairs people from different or opposite sides, and there really is a vision of producing something like the "civility" we've been hearing so much about lately. But it seems like I'm go-to Palin defender over there. The commenter is wrong that I only did it once. I've done it many times, and I am not a big Palin supporter. I'm more of a big critic of Palin-hating, and there's been a lot of Palin-hating out there to criticize:

I think someone here said it: the best thing about BH.tv is that you can put a face (and voice) to writers that you might read in some respectable publication or other and see that they are totally uninformed assholes.

I think someone here said it: the best thing about BH.tv is that you can put a face (and voice) to writers that you might read in some respectable publication or other and see that they are totally uninformed assholes.

The flip side of this is that in all those attacks, not one has even touched the lady. Has there been a single astute criticism, a single cocktail-party witicism, a single memorable skewer to come out of all that talk?

Henry said...The flip side of this is that in all those attacks, not one has even touched the lady.====================I would say that the criticism of Palin as not intellectually ready for Primetime stuck. As did the charge after she quit as Alaska governor that she was not a serious person and lacked executive abilities.

Meanwhile Pat Buchanan fired the other barrel of the shotgun at the Left over Tucson and Palin. After the blood libel charge stuck, Buchanan charged Chris Matthews with "You guys are putting out Tucson massacre rationales that make this the Birther Movement of the Left".

Then "Mr Tingles", acted just like a Birther. Backpedalled and said he was just asking the questions..not claiming Palin and others were behind Tucson...just seeking evidence...

I've noticed that in the "introspective, maybe we went to far" opinion pieces commenters never seem to mention by name those who's columns went to far. Ironic, given that the knee jerk over-reactions had a specific name (Palin) attached to them.

A woman's right to abortion has jus about worn me out. Who says women are entitled to everything? What about the rights of men and children? How exactly to the rights of women usurp the rights of men in their children and the right of children to live?

I'm with Palin on this one. The right to kill your child strikes me as a pretty sordid and inconsequential right.

We probably can't stop you from killing your child. The consequences of stopping you from killing your child might in some cases be worse than stopping you.

But, this is a pretty low ranking right, this right to kill your child.

And, no, the right to ownership of your own body doesn't necessarily override the rights of men and children.

This is the core hatred of Palin, isn't it? Feminist women get furious when they are told that the rights of others are just as important as their rights.

What strikes me is that leftists can't give Palin credit for anything. Which led me to ask the question of myself, can I give Obama credit for anything? And the answer is yes. He negotiated from a position of weakness against Republicans in the lame duck session and got repeal of DADT, passage of the START Treaty, an extension of unemployment benefits and reduction in FICA witholding, all in exchange for a 2 year extension of the Bush tax cuts. That the Republicans were spineless isn't the issue. Obama took full advantage of their lack of spine. In the aftermath of the Gifford shooting he played good cop to his buddies on the hard left's bad cop perfectly. With the exception of Palin the Republicans were silent. So, yes, Obama is an effective pol. So is Palin, witness the Left's agita over her. But they'll never admit she's effective, a good strategist or clever. She's the enemy and therefore must be destroyed and that's the all of it to them.

I watched only the one with Ana Marie Cox and I'm wondering why you consider that a defense of Palin. Cox urges that we oppose candidates on substantive issues--which I agree with. Solid sense. You, however, said that it's nice to have a girl candidate and a black candidate. Not much substance there.

I'm not saying there is. Indeed, my point is nearly the opposite. I'm noting that I've done what I've done more than once, and that it's what counts as defending Palin over there, but it's pretty weak stuff, and presumably that's why I'm the BHTV go-to person to defend Palin. They need to get a real Palin supporter who will vigorously defend her!

The BHTV guys would really implode if they set up Crack Emcee as paert of a talking head duo on feminism. We may first need to create a new resume for Crack, which calls him a Berkeley Professor of Comparative Cultures. Crack knows how to Pile it High and Deep. So he actually can be called a Phd.

So, of course, you get narcissists who believe they or members of their party possess direct access to the truth [Krugman, Rich]. Of course you get people who prefer monologue to dialogue [Krugman, Dowd]. Of course you get people who detest politics because it frustrates their ability to get 100 percent of what they want [Krugman, Friedman]. Of course you get people who gravitate toward the like-minded and loathe their political opponents [Krugman, Rich]. They feel no need for balance and correction.

* * *

@Cedarford -- I'm not saying that all attacks on Palin have failed to register. Clearly they have as you note. Personally I think the first of the two criticisms you bring up was well justified (though "not ready for prime time" doesn't mean "never ready for prime time", a distinction that her critics ignore).

I'm saying that BHTV, in particular, has never advanced the criticism beyond those broad-brush attacks. All that brain power and so little insight.

They need to get a real Palin supporter who will vigorously defend her!

Why bother? Do you actually believe the libtard readership at BHTV would give Palin a fair hearing?

Let them stew in their little circle jerk. Keeps them off the streets where they would only beat down black conservatives and bite the fingers off of those protetesting Obamacare.

Crack nailed it: "the best thing about BH.tv is that you can put a face (and voice) to writers that you might read in some respectable publication or other and see that they are totally uninformed assholes"

Meanwhile, let's put aside once and for all this intellectually dishonest assertion that "Palin is not ready" or "she lacks necessary experience," etc. In the last couple of years, she has demonstrated herself, time and again, to be better informed and have a better grasp on issues and needed policies, than anyone else out there. And yet you still hate on her. Meanwhile, many of the people who are proposed instead of her, e.g. Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, etc., have less experience than she. So, be honest and admit it, that she could be the most experienced and prepared person in the history of the world and you would still oppose her.

If you have ideology/policy differences with her, fine. But like most of the arguments against her, this "she lacks necessary experience" assertion is total and complete nonsense.

(1) The left is the white knights fighting against the stupid bigotry of lower and middle class whites.

(2) The stupid lower and middle class whites are so evil that they have no right to a self-interest or political representation.

I think I'm becoming a Palin supporter because she blows this paradigm to hell. As a member of one of the left's cherished protected classes, she can't just be dismissed. So, her blue collar white background can't just be shrugged off as the province of bigots. Palin is a candidate who actually can represent my self-interest.

This is why (among other reasons) she is so hated. And, it's why the left has marked her for assassination.

"So, be honest and admit it, that she could be the most experienced and prepared person in the history of the world and you would still oppose her."

If only she had an opportunity to serve and finish a full term as governor of a sparsely populated state without flaking out. Maybe she could have used that opportunity to her advantage.

I defended her against liberal friends and then she went out and proved them all correct: she is a flake.

As far as Paul Ryan comparisons: Paul Ryan has ideas. Sarah Palin gets her name in the news by *endorsing* his ideas.

I just wish everyone would stop talking about her and let her go away. I'm sick to death of defending her against ridiculous attacks. The other day I was engaged in a debate with liberals about Sarah Palin. My position: Sarah Palin is not "a monster." Honestly.

I'm sick of debating with Kool Aid drinkers why she is no way fit to be president.

I'm sick of hearing from liberals that Sarah Palin is the "leader" of the conservative movement. I'm sick of hearing from conservatives who a agree with them.

As for Palin, the hate won't stop. Women are not supposed to be conservative. Conservative women, should they exist, aren't supposed to have husbands less prominent than themselves. No one is supposed to have five kids, especially on purpose. And though it's permitted to go to a bunch of little-known state schools, not if you want to govern. Ivies are really a given there. Law degree expected, though not technically required.

Also, it's not permitted to say stuff like "Let's party like it's 1773!" and trip up people who are obviously much, much smarter than you. It's not fair.

I think I'm one of two people banned from the bh.tv forum... for being obtuse when arguing with the progressives there (similarly obtuse progressives and liberals interestingly aren't also banned -- see bjkeefe).

Brenda, the moderator over there, is an absolute incompetent. She is biased enough to be a bigot.

I confess, Henry, that I was very much impressed by Charles Blow's column. I mean, it was obvious that someone at the NYT would be delegated to undo the last few days' hysteria now that it's fairly obvious that the killer likely hasn't spent his time poring over Sarah Palin's tweets, but I didn't expect the response to be from him, nor for it to be done so well.

wv: enifide. Either a new drug, or a useful (if low-value) Scrabble rack.

I really don't understand MG's bullshit stance. When did "nuance" ever become THE word to describe liberals/dem pols? It's boggling that they really believe this shit. "Bildungsroman"?!?! Vomit. You had her 100% nailed to wall and her squirming was painful. I'm still waiting for any evidence that Obama is more "nuanced" than a Twinkie. Or "curious". What gaggable fricking hogwash.

"Defend Palin" as Ann uses it means two things: refute the ridiculous smears directed Palin's way, and point out the symbolic value she brings to the national scene. That's not much of a defense, as Ann is the first to say. It has almost nothing to do with Palin, her political views, her personality or character, her strengths/weaknesses, etc. Instead, it's all about PR and image -- how Palin is used (mostly abused) by others.

As it happens, Palin doesn't need much defending -- she's doing quite well on her own in turning the endless abuse, from all the usual suspects, into a source of power and strength. How to use it is her main problem, and as far as I can tell, she's still working on that one.

That's not going to happen, precisely because of my explanation above.

Middle and lower class whites are now refusing to accept their status as political untouchables. The era in which that was their default status is now over, probably because we've elected a black president.

Palin is the representative of that formerly untouchable class. So, you'll continue to hear a lot from and about her.

Awesome, perfect description. Anytime these people have to defend their ideas BEYOND JUST THE WORDS THEY USE, it's game over. It's why I like to refer to the "liberal way of thinking" as bumper sticker politics

"As far as Paul Ryan comparisons: Paul Ryan has ideas. Sarah Palin gets her name in the news by *endorsing* his ideas."

Thus demonstrating her ability to *lead*. This is what an executive does, she recognizes, sorts by priority, and promotes.

If we can count on Palin recognizing the good ideas presented by such as Paul Ryan it's hardly a criticism of her. True enough it doesn't present HER as the answer, but what sort of twisted value system insists that the president be the answer?

The same sort that then excuses said president for being in over his head since it's a job no one could do?

Palin claims she resigned because Democrats were taking advantage of a loophole in the law to file fraudulent complaints, in order to hamstring her ability to govern Alaska.

By resigning, she took the target off of Alaska, saved the taxpayers alot of legal expenses, and gave them an Executive who could govern without interference by the Dem partisans their MSM whores on the national level.

Believe her or not. But this canard that she's a "quitter" is just pure libtard bullshit.

I am sick unto death of those who state their belief Palin doesn't have the intellectual fire-power/"gravitas" to be President. It was said of FDR that: "He has a second-rate intellect, but a first-rate temperament." (By one of his most ardent "wise-men" supporters, btw) But then he came from the "right background.

Above all Palin has good political instincts--better than anyone else I can think of in the GOP stable-- a HUGE recognition "Q" factor and an excellent public speaker bth on the stump and in the very sort of forums that will be used in Presidential campaign. She proved herself a capable executive both as Mayor and while as Governor--which is a helluva lot more than Obama ever did in the "real world" before hehyped the natives on his way to the Presidency. No reason to think those self-same instincts wouldn't serve her well in the Oval Office.

Her REAL problem is twofold: (1) she has successfully been painted as a poorly educated flake ignorant of affairs of state by the MSM/SNL, etc., and (2) has no support by educated women--both Dems & GOP--who see her as a distinct threat to their social status by dint of her educational background and marriage to a "blue-collar" status husband. The blogger WHISKEY at his blog "Whiskey's Place" has been all over this social phenomenon for a long time. Sadly, ironically, the college-educated GOP woman's vote may be her biggest obstacle to the WH.

That may be the biggest difference between people who think that Palin might (might!) make a good president and those who break out in hives at the very suggestion: What is the role of president?

If the role of president is to have all the answers and to rule, then it becomes extremely important that the president be worthy. Thus we get the messianic language, the seeming need for someone smarter by far, Ivy League, etc... And criticisms become threatening and hateful simply because it attempts to undermine the the chosen one, to reveal the feet of clay... "Hope he fails" and it becomes a blasphemy rather than an ordinary sort of sentiment.

And of course Palin isn't an intellectual (though far from stupid, she seems more of an applications sort of person) and she didn't go to an ivy league school and she's not above middle-class and her favorite authors write about sports and she doesn't have a law degree and she's got too many kids and she can be interpreted in one of two ways... a joke, or else a threat. A joke because she doesn't qualify as "better than us and fit to rule" or else a threat because she must *desire* to rule, her supporters must want her to rule, and just look at her values!

But the error is foundational and on the part of those who believe that they are choosing a ruler.

"Fen - she should have fought them as governor. If she ran from lefties filing ethics complaints, how is she gonna stand up to Dinner Jacket?"

The question is, Alex, could she have fought them? You certainly know as well as I do that only a single one of the ethics complaints had any virtue... she was prohibited by law from forming a legal defense fund. Undoubtedly it seemed like a good idea at the time the ethics laws in Alaska were written but also, undoubtedly, someone made a rather serious mistake, somehow. Certainly she was capable of fighting them as governor... up to the point that the law required no one else could help her pay for it. This situation, as far as I've ever heard, is utterly unique to Alaska. We expect that politicians form legal defense funds all the time to deal with those attempting to tie them up in court with frivolities.

I don't believe she could have fought the frivolous attacks as governor. I don't believe that the blithe assurance that *of course* she could have done so is supportable. At the least it seems obvious that even if she might have done so it would have been at enormous cost, money and otherwise.

I sometimes think that those who seem to be personally offended that she "quit" are actually offended that she changed the rules. I think, my opinion, is that some people have a gut level need for rules to stay constant and when someone changed the playing field it's as if the earth really did shift under their feet. And they don't like it.

She did have a choice, certainly. She could fight the charges that everyone knew were frivolous and designed to harass and tear down... or she could, by fiat, change the game entirely, change the field of battle, choose her ground.

I can't find a way to criticize her for taking command of and changing the rules, putting herself in a position of mobility and strength, even if it meant having to do without the foundation of that additional time in office.

I"d actually like to see a three way bloggingheads discussion. Two of the commenters are your standard bloggingheaders engaged in your standard blogging head conversation. The third is Titus who interjects at various times with scatalogical posts that have very little to do with the conversation and which put the guests out of their game while the pontificate about whatever topic they are pontificating about.

You're a Palin acolyte like all of your readers, Althouse. It's pathetic to watch. It's the nature of the modern conservative movement. You're too gutless to admit that you're a huge fan of Palin and you pretend to be some sort of neutral observer.

Latest poll shows Palin losing to Obama by a 56-30 margin in 2012. So I guess you've got your work cut out for you. LoL.

Alex, that may be a fact, but it doesn't automatically follow that it's a fact that she could have continued as governor, which was your claim.

And having done one thing and not the other it's also not a fact that the public-opinion negatives of "quitting" are obviously greater than the ultimate negatives of not quitting. It is, however, a fact that once the campaign was over and done and Palin, with McCain, had lost, that the attacks on her continued unabated. Who else has ever received that treatment after losing a political campaign?

Normally it would seem that, of course!, a person could go back and do their job, fade back into the old role with the old levels of interest. Is Senator Kerry hounded?

Althouse, the most mild of Palin supporters, who truly does limit herself to criticisms of unfounded criticism, simply on account of she doesn't hate Palin and scoff and scorn... becomes a "huge fan."

This is divisiveness... one must either hate or else be a huge fan. No inbetweens, no moderation.

And Palin herself must be mocked. Why? No idea. But she must be mocked. It might be that mocking doesn't require understanding nor answer.

So, in the end, I'm uninclined to let these people win, to let them decide who to destroy and to accept that destruction as complete. My choice. Am I supposed to accept as legitimate a claim to poll results that amounts to the results of an all out concerted attack undertaken and maintained for three years? Of course her reputation is wounded, the scoffing and denigration after all, works.

But look to other studies or polls. When people actually see or listen to Sarah Palin they think better of her rather than worse. Maybe not a whole lot better, but better. If she was so ridiculous, it would go the other way... let her talk and destroy herself.

Scoffing is a way to shut people up, tell others not to listen. Because if Palin runs for president this time, even if she doesn't win anything at all, people will be exposed to *her* instead of the scoffing. And the scoffing will be revealed as shallow and vindictive.

Most Americans are fair-minded and ignore the leftist scoffing. But the fact is Palin is an intellectual lightweight, can't control her own daughters and won't grant interviews outside of the Hannity bubble.

But I would not want to be on boringheads. Not that anyone would get an invitation. Unlike the commenters there I don't aspire to be a boring talking head. They should put some of their all-stars up there. The bj guy and that brendan dude. Unless they are the same person since they only have about ten commentors or so.

Trooper - funny how with Democrat parents, you never see out of control daughters. F.e., Chelsea or the Obama girls are perfectly behaved. But the Bush twins, the Palin daughters are hellraisers. I think Republicans simply don't give a fuck about their kids. There's something sociopathic about Republican politicians that they forget to raise their kids right. Remember Patti Davis?

Hey Alex, Eleanor Mondale did the whole Redskins offensive line. Al Gore's kid had a little car thingy.Did you remember what was up with Kerry's daughter?

This has nothing to do with nothing. Leave the kids out of it. The mainstream media and the libs want to attack Palin through her children. I get it. And she played into it by having a reality show so I have stopped defending her about it. But to claim that it is only Republican kids is just a big bag of bullshit.

So Alex now it is time to flip the switch and become a Republican troll. Just sayn'

Trooper - the point is if it's Palin vs Obama in 2012, you guys got a BIG problem. Obama as perfect parent juxtaposition against Palin as incompetent. Fuck, she can't even give her kids normal names. Track, Trig????

Alex, you're changing the parameters again, which is Okay I just wanted to point out that you are. Your new question is: Is Palin good for the GOP?

First, of course, is the assumption that being good for the GOP is desired. Personally, I think they need a lesson, badly. Has the GOP been good for the people? Big spending professional politicians, hogs at a trough. It's as meaningful to ask if Palin has been good for the GOP as asking if the Tea Party has been good for the GOP.

Palin and the Tea Parties are not the same thing but I think that both have been positive influences on the political sphere, a necessary push-back to entrenched interests. I believe that voters want a choice and the Libertarians are not far off at all to view the two primary political parties as virtual clones of the other. Give voters a choice.

Palin's boldness has been reflected in an increased boldness by various GOP office holders. This is undoubtedly the sort of uncomfortable speech that dems have been moaning over lately. Why won't people be civil? We've got one governor telling teacher's unions where to shove it and another governor telling the NAACP to kiss his ass. Perhaps this is nothing new, and only new that we hear about it, but either way... yes, I think it's a good thing.

Voters appreciate boldness and they appreciate being given a choice. During the election cycle Palin mucked around to the dismay of GOP leadership. Well, good! If voters based their votes against her endorsements they deserve what they got. That she picked some to endorse that were unelectable in any case portrays her as a risk taker, and puts the GOP on notice of their own proclivity to chose the safe candidates just to get numbers instead of promoting an actual alternative to voters.

And she brought interest and fervor to midterm local elections. She did that, not anyone else, not the GOP leadership whose job it is to help local people get elected.

I tend to think that greater participation is a good thing, no matter who wins.

It is funny the hyperbole that must be used in regards to Palin. In attempts to dismiss her, her opponents have to run out the most derisive superlatives, leaving the English language more the bankrupt for it.

Question: Are democrat kids "better behaved" because republicans are decent, follow the "leave kids alone" rule and allow their sins to remain private?

And now, really, Alex! Are you reduced to "she named her kids weird things?"

It's a plot you know. 20-some years ago when Track was born Palin looked at his scrunched up little face and then up at studly Todd beaming with the results of his virility and said to him, "I've got a plan, stud-muffin. See, we name our kids weird things and when I'm running for president of the US of A someday, someone will say "Look at the stupid names!" and I'll be able to snatch that bolt from the air like a Valkyrie and turn it back again, along with every attack made by *my* desire, because they will have stepped right into my trap. I'll be able to loose the democrats safest demographic if only I can get someone to make fun of the names of our children. Because as soon as they do someone will think... Latrina? Shanika? Deshawn? Bwaaa ha haa haaa!" And then stud-muffin looks at her and says, "Um, sure, whatever you say, honey. When can I make another?"

As for the Palin kids' names - what about the Obama kids? If their parents had not made it into the Big House, they would have gone through life with their names giving away their race, and presumed affirmative action advancement.

As for the discipline, etc., what we are talking about mostly is a class issue. The upper middle class, above, have their one or at most two kids, and then smother them with protection. I did it. As did many of my friends.

I would suggest that another part of it is the size of the family. It is one thing to know where one, or maybe two, kids are, but far harder to do that with 5, 24/7 365. I grew up in a family of 5 boys, and my mother didn't have a clue many days where we were after school. (They still tell the story, 40+ years later, of a neighbor telling them of seeing me up by a ski area 50 miles away, when I was supposed to be grounded in my room).

And, another issue is that they live in rural Alaska. Friends from a more settled part of that state let their 2 kids run much more than I think they would have if they were living in, say, Chicago, where the mother had grown up.

wv: peaked (pronounced peak-ed, not peak'd) - euphemism for having had too much fun last night.

Interesting comment on an audio over at NRO this morning that Palin is much more important to the left, than to the right, these days. The right may defend her, but she is not the walk-away choice for President by Republicans that you would think from all the rhetoric on the left.

Instead, I would suggest that she is the GW Bush that they so crave, now that the real one has retired to Texas. She is the bogeywoman that they keep their kids up late at night with night mares about.

I can just see those late night stories. Think of Bambi, with his mother killed by the evil Palin clan, led by their bloodthirsty mother, and then the innumerable Palins setting fire to the forest to make more room for themselves. That sort of thing.

I would never disparage Joey. You know that. It's just that Ms. Hamster is obviously trying to channel Joey right up to the point where she is hanging out with guys who like to wag their weenie in front of school girls.

"... if she can't handle a bunch mean lawyers how in the living fuck is she going to handle North Korea?"

Firstly, do you believe that "mean lawyers" is an accurate summation of the situation? One deals with "mean lawyers" within the perimeters of the law by hiring one's own "mean lawyers." The law, however, forbade her from raising the money to hire her own mean lawyers.

And I expect that she'd deal with North Korea by suiting the field of battle to her (our) own advantage instead of beating her head on a wall in an effort to play by someone else's rules.

And as Kent so eloquently put... It would be hard to handle North Korea more ineptly than Obama.

"Not everyone who thinks that Palin would make a poor president believes that President Obama is a good one."

True enough. I'm not convinced she'd make a great president either.

But even so, Obama's failings illustrate a truth about effectiveness and perhaps what are valid expectations for the president and what are not. OMGAWD Palin would screw up KOREA!!! eleventy!! sort of demands the response of "Yeah, and that would be different from what Obama is doing in what way?"

Reagan was supposed to destroy the world in a nuclear holocaust by being a cowboy and instead he brought down the Iron Curtain without so much as a war... at least partly because he was viewed as a legitimate threat. No, I'm not saying that Palin is Reagan, but she's not Obama and there is no doubt in my mind that she understands in her gut that threats do not go away if we grovel before the world.

Althouse isn't the only defender of Sarah Palin on Bloggingheads. Michael Moynihan from Reason TV was also put into that position in his recent discussion with Adam Serwer.

Actually he was pretty funny. He said he was getting tired of having to defend a woman who he really didn't like or want in the political arena, but he felt it was necessary because of the venom of her attackers.

In fact, he made the point so well that Serwer admitted he had contributed to these kinds of attacks and that he now wishes he could take it back because he feels bad about it.

That's why I love Bloggingheads so much. It's a dialogue. Blog commenters with different views rarely would make the admission that Serwer did to Moynihan.

There are a couple of deep thinkers at the BHTV forums, and I find it can be worthwhile to debate the "secular republic" crowd.

but Bob Wright has a stable of Lefties he grooms...Tim Fernholz ??? MIchelle Goldberg??? who are total hacks. I can barely watch. It's oviously Left of Center (like walking into a grad school lounge at the New School). Maybe he's getting sucked into the NY times vortex.

That's what happens when you aim for "fairness."

Perhaps Sarah Palin and the NY Times Vortex are causally related. Push up the Michelle Goldberg meter and you must re-Palinize

Again, with the double standard applied to Palin yet ignored for Obama. One, we need to make sure Palin doesn't get near the whitehouse. What if Mccain died, Palin has no experience. Versus, a one term senator with no real experience either. Yet him becoming president and not being one seat away from becoming president should Biden die, not an issue at all. Now Palin with her kids weird names. As oppposed to the president name, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?

Michelle Goldberg is a riot. Michelle can't believe that Palin thought she was qualified to be President and Ann countered why did Obama think he was capable. Michelle's reply, "Because he's a great president!." It just shows how blind she is and how unwilling she is to give Obama the same amount of "nuanced" (she loves that word) criticism she gives to Palin. She may still come out hating Palin and loving Obama, but the fact that she can't explain why he is so qualified shows that she never really thought about it.

About Palin being a quitter, here's what I think. When you can't go forward, you go around. Outflank the buggers. That's what she did. To me she would only be a quitter if she shut up and stopped hitting back. She hasn't quit yet.